Public-Comments-Part-4 — Fairfax City Council, February 29, 2024

Email 3 of 3: Comments for 2/29 Public Hearing 6:30 pm
Sharon C. Ingram <[email protected]>
Thu 2/29/2024 11:19 AM
To:Fairfax Town Council <[email protected]>;Christine Foster <[email protected]> Cc:Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>;Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>;Dawn R. Lorenzen <[email protected]> 16 attachments (16 MB)
Exhibit 2.pdf; Exhibit 3.pdf; Exhibit 4.pdf; Exhibit 5.pdf; Exhibit 6.pdf; Exhibit 7.pdf; Exhibit 8.pdf; Exhibit 9.pdf; Exhibit 10.pdf; Exhibit 11.pdf; Exhibit 12.pdf; Exhibit 13.pdf; Exhibit 14.pdf; Exhibit 15.pdf; Exhibit 16.pdf; Exhibit 17.pdf; Please find attached Exhibits 2-17 to Jacob Friedman’s complaint. (Email 3 of 3).

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you,
Sharon
Sharon C. Ingram
Assistant
Aaron M. Scolari | Dean D. Paik | Richard M. Harris
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.365.5327 direct | 415.956.6457 fax [email protected] |www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

EXHIBIT 2
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-2 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 4 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-2 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 4 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-2 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 4 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-2 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 3
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 17 FRIEDMAN RESIDENCE 79 WOOD LANE FAIRFAX, CA 94930 SUBMITTED BY : COBY FRIEDMAN Tel. 415-310-5442 Email: [email protected] Fax: 415-296-6437 GROUND FLOOR AND GARAGE PLANDINING

KITCHEN
UP

BEDROOM
MAIN FLOOR ’ ’

LAUNDRY
DECK
LIVING ’ ’
PWD
UP DN
PANTRY
to basement

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 17 ABCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D BASEMENT PLAN UP BEDROOM MECHANICAL ROOM OFFICE UP ADU W/D SEWAGE TANK FRIEDMAN RESIDENCE 79 WOOD LANE FAIRFAX, CA 94930 SUBMITTED BY : COBY FRIEDMAN Tel. 415-310-5442 Email: [email protected] Fax: 415-296-6437 PLANS - GRID UPPER FLOOR PLAN ABCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D DINING KITCHEN UP BEDROOM MAIN FLOOR ’ ’ LAUNDRY DECK LIVING ’ ’ PWD UP DN PANTRY to basement GROUND FLOOR PLAN ABCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D BEDROOM DN DN BATH BATH ROOF DN ’ W-D JADU Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 17 1 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 17 5 9
6 7
8 10
1 2 3
4 11a
11b
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 17 1 7
4 9
8 10
6 11
5 2
3 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 17 3 6
5 9
8 2
4 1
11 12 13
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 17 1 2
4 8
7 1
1 2
10 2
2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 17 4 1
5 1
1 2
10 2
2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 17 5 1
1 2
10 2
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 17 1 10
1 1
2 10
2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 11 of 17 11 8
1 4
2 3 6
7 8
5 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 12 of 17 11 12
11 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
11 9
10 12
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 13 of 17 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 14 of 17 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 15 of 17 1 2
3 4
5 6 7
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 16 of 17 7 1
2 4 5
6 7
3 8
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-3 Filed 01/22/24 Page 17 of 17 EXHIBIT 4
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-4 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-4 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 5
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 4 1 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ORDER, TC § 17.036.010, et seq.

APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ORDER
Town Code (TC) § 17.036.010, et seq.

TO THE TOWN CLERK:

I, Jacob (Coby) Friedman, make the following verified application to the Town Council appealing an erroneous order, decision and determination by a Town official under TC § 17.036.010, et seq. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify as set forth below.

1. I own the real property located at 79 Wood Lane, Fairfax, California 94930, and the improvements and current construction project at that location (“the Project”).

2. Mark Lockaby is the Building Official for the Town of Fairfax and an administrative official under TC § 17.036.010.

3. On June 8, 2023 (less than ten days prior to this application and appeal), Mr. Lockaby issued an “Order to Stop Work” (“the Order”) directing that all work on the Project cease immediately. The Order is an order made by an administrative official in the administration and enforcement of TC Title 17 (Zoning). This order was made in error.

4. I understand that the Order is based on Mr. Lockaby’s decision and determination that (a) the work being performed on the Project is subject to Planning Commission (PC) approval which I have not yet received; (b) the work is not related to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior ADU (JADU) work and so is subject to PC approval, rather than administrative approval only by the Planning Department; and (c) the work may properly be shut down under a stop work order even in the absence of any finding that the work violates any building code requirements. This is a decision and determination by an administrative official in the administration and enforcement of TC Title 17 (Zoning). This decision and determination was made in error.

5. Prior to making the Order, I had reached agreement with Mr. Lockaby regarding most of the work on the Project, i.e., for which portions I could proceed without further PC approval and for which I agreed not to do further work without PC approval. The only potential exception was exterior stairs that were added solely to provide access to a JADU (“the JADU Stairs”). Since that portion of the work was directly related to JADU work, it is not subject to PC review and approval. After I asked for Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 4 2 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ORDER, TC § 17.036.010, et seq. clarification and explanation of the Town’s position regarding the JADU Stairs, Mr. Lockaby posted the Order at the site stopping all work. Despite repeated requests, I have not received any clarification or explanation of the Town’s position. I have since inquired whether the Town would lift the Order if I agreed not to do any further work on the JADU Stairs until and unless we resolve the issue. The Town has not responded.

6. Per TC § 17.036.030, this appeal stays the Order and all actions by the Town in furtherance of the Order until this appeal is decided by the Town Council. Accordingly, I am entitled to resume work on the Project upon submission of this appeal and intend to do so.

7. I am a person aggrieved by the Order. The Order is causing me substantial financial harm. Allowing the work to continue will cause the Town no harm because, if the work is subject to additional approvals (by Mr.

Lockaby or the PC), the Town will still have the opportunity to review the work and decide whether to approve it before I will be able to complete the Project. In other words, allowing me to continue the work will be solely at my own risk, not the Town’s.

8. This application is timely under TC § 17.036.020.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on this 9th day of June, 2023, in Fairfax, California.
_______________________________
Jacob (Coby) Friedman
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 4 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 6
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-6 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2 From: Richard M. Harris
To: Janet Coleson
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: 79 Wood lane
Date: Friday, July 28, 2023 3:49:00 PM
Ms. Coleson:

As you know, we represent Coby Friedman in his effort to complete his permitted construction project at 79 Wood Lane, in Fairfax (Project). Mr. Friedman requests that the City of Fairfax (City) provides him a green tag so he can hook up power to the new construction. As the City inspector has already found, the Project has met all of the requirements to receive this green tag.

As we discussed on the phone on July 21, Mr. Friedman contacted the City inspector to inspect his electrical system and issue a green tag. And though the City inspector determined that the electrical system is proper, he still withheld the green tag based on an unrelated dispute. The City and Mr.

Friedman disagree about when plan changes need to be submitted to the planning commission for approval, and the withholding of the green tag is being used as leverage to force Mr. Friedman to capitulate to the City’s position. As I explained Mr. Friedman’s position to you, you told me that it is “common practice” for the City to withhold the green tag to extract other things the City needs from a homeowner unrelated to the propriety of the electrical system.

After a City has exercised its discretion and determined that a party is entitled to an approval, withhold that approval for other reasons causes the City to be liable for damages. Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 (failure to provide a certificate of occupancy to extract unrelated concessions from homeowner entitled property owner to damages). That is exactly the situation here. The City has determined that the electrical system is proper, but is withholding the green tag in an effort to extract concessions on an unrelated dispute. As this dispute continues, Mr.

Friedman’s damages only grow, including his temporary power costs, the loss of use of his home, and the inability to complete the Project.

Please confirm that the City will issue the green tag within 7 days. If the green tag is not issued, Mr.

Friedman will be forced to take further action. He expressly reserves all of his rights.

I look forward to your response.

Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-6 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 7
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-7 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 5 From: Janet Coleson
To: Richard M. Harris
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4:18:42 PM
Richard,
Respectfully, it’s not my responsibility to resolve your client’s issues. You and I both know he needs to submit (with appropriate fee) his application to back to the Commission to ask for approval of his currently unpermitted construction. I don’t believe the electrical tag will be withheld for issues unrelated to the electrical.

Please contact me to discuss why a State licensed contractor is performing construction not in conformance with approved plans.

Thank you,
Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:13 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet –
We are well past the deadline set forth in my letter. CFC’s damages are accruing, including (but not limited to) inefficiencies for his construction, PG&E temporary power fees, and construction loan costs. I urge you to take this opportunity to work to resolve this issue before litigation becomes inevitable.

I look forward to your response.

Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-7 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 5 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Richard M. Harris
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:33 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Janet –
Just checking in. Thanks.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 4:04 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Richard,
Mark Lockaby, the Building Official, is out until August 1. I won’t be able to discuss with him whether the electrical system is in order, or extends to unpermitted construction, until that time. I will be back in touch with you shortly after August 1.

Thank you,
Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-7 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 5 bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Ms. Coleson:

Friedman’s damages only grow, including his temporary power costs, the loss of use of his home, and the inability to complete the Project.

Please confirm that the City will issue the green tag within 7 days. If the green tag is not issued, Mr.

Friedman will be forced to take further action. He expressly reserves all of his rights.

I look forward to your response.

Richard M. Harris | Associate
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-7 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 5 ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-7 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 8
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-8 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2

T O W N O F F A I R F A X
142 Bolinas Road, Fairfax, California 94930
(4 1 5) 4 5 3 - 1 5 8 4 / Fax (4 1 5) 4 5 3 - 1 6 1 8

8-10-2023
Coby Friedman
96 Forrest Avenue
Fairfax, CA 94930
Re; 79 Wood Lane Suspension of Permit
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Under the authority of the California Building Code [A] 105.6 adopted by the Town of Fairfax I hereby suspend your building permit for construction at 79 Wood Ave. for the following reasons:
the work being done is based on incorrect, inaccurate, and incomplete information.

The construction to date was not approved by the planning commission, or by the building department for construction. In order to commence construction, planning commission approvals must be obtained, and construction drawings checked, and approved by the building department.

Following are the items that have not been approved by the planning commission, or building department:

1. A portion of the top floor has been prepared to be a junior accessory dwelling unit, including enclosing an upper deck, and adding an exterior stairway.

2. The front low roof has been eliminated, and a deck above a portion of the lower floor even with the top floor has been constructed.

3. The basement has been converted into living space for an accessory dwelling unit.

Before construction maycan resume, the changes to the approved plans must be approved by the planning commission and building department.

Sincerely,
Mark Lockaby
Building Official
Commented [JC1]: And the building permit modified?
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-8 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 9
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-9 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-9 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 10
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 7 From: Janet Coleson
To: Richard M. Harris
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:08:15 PM
Richard,
I haven’t seen the notice. I’ll check in with Mark.

I do believe, however, that it’s past time for your client to stop doing whatever he wants and follow the direction provided. I am also hopeful that he starts demonstrating he can keep to verbal agreements and it doesn’t take judicial intervention to resolve the matter. Hopeful, but given the history with your client, unfortunately, not all that optimistic.

Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:24 AM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet –
Please let me know when we can expect a response. We would very much like to come to a solution short of further litigious action.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 7 you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Richard M. Harris
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 10:33 AM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Janet –
We are in receipt of the Town’s draft suspending the permit at 79 Wood lane. Three of the four items listed are related to the ADU/JADU changes Mr. Friedman has done and must be ministerially approved. As for the front deck, and rather than discussing the letter point-by-point (and reserving all of Mr. Friedman’s rights), we suggest that Mr. Friedman submit his plans showing the changes to the front deck to the planning department. Upon submission (not approval), the City will reinstate the permit and allow Mr. Friedman to continue work (including supplying a green tag should the project meet all electrical requirements) until and unless the Planning commission rejects Mr.

Friedman’s plans.

Let us know if you agree so we can get the plans ready for submission.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Richard M. Harris
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
JanetI find your response a bit confusing. On our phone call, you read to me an email you had received from Mark, which said in substance that green tags were being withheld in order to extract concessions from homeowners (such as forcing Coby to submit plans to the planning department according to your schedule). This whole week, Mark has not been responding to Coby’s requests for a reinspection of the green tag – still there is no reason that the green tag was not provided when Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 7 first inspected.

Please advise.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Richard,
Respectfully, it’s not my responsibility to resolve your client’s issues. You and I both know he needs to submit (with appropriate fee) his application to back to the Commission to ask for approval of his currently unpermitted construction. I don’t believe the electrical tag will be withheld for issues unrelated to the electrical.

Please contact me to discuss why a State licensed contractor is performing construction not in conformance with approved plans.

I look forward to your response.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 4:04 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 7 Richard,
Mark Lockaby, the Building Official, is out until August 1. I won’t be able to discuss with him whether the electrical system is in order, or extends to unpermitted construction, until that time. I will be back in touch with you shortly after August 1.

Thank you,
Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Ms. Coleson:

After a City has exercised its discretion and determined that a party is entitled to an approval, withhold that approval for other reasons causes the City to be liable for damages. Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 (failure to provide a certificate of occupancy to extract Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 7 unrelated concessions from homeowner entitled property owner to damages). That is exactly the situation here. The City has determined that the electrical system is proper, but is withholding the green tag in an effort to extract concessions on an unrelated dispute. As this dispute continues, Mr.

Friedman’s damages only grow, including his temporary power costs, the loss of use of his home, and the inability to complete the Project.

Please confirm that the City will issue the green tag within 7 days. If the green tag is not issued, Mr.

Friedman will be forced to take further action. He expressly reserves all of his rights.

I look forward to your response.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-10 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 11
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-11 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-11 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 12
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 12 From: Richard M. Harris
To: Janet Coleson
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 5:56:00 PM
Janet –
Apologies that you are not on vacation.

On an appeal of the alleged suspension of the building permit: Previously, you stated “there is no appeal to the Planning Commission or Town Council of a Building Official’s stop work order issued under the authority of the CA Bldg Code.” This is consistent with what I found in the Building code.

Section 15.04.100 (c)(4) says that appeals of decisions by the building official will be “processed in accordance with the provisions of § 15.04.028 of this code.” But there is no section 15.04.028 of the Fairfax Code. What change in the law has there been between June 2023 and now? In addition, regardless this alleged suspension, can you at least confirm that because the electrical system has been inspected and approved, a green tag will issue? You have concurred that the City will not withhold a green tag for reasons unrelated to the electrical, and there are no other reasons not to approve the electrical system.

Please advise.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:43 AM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Richard,
First of all, I said I was out of state for a few days (back later tomorrow), not on vacation.

Second, although I don’t have the time to go into the details now, we find your cited authority to be outdated and lacking merit. We can argue the case law when I return. In the meantime, there are Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 12 several ways in which we may proceed.

1. An appeal of a suspension of a building permit is heard by the Town Council in lieu of a Building Board of Appeals (Fairfax is a small jurisdiction and does not have a Building Board of Appeals). If that is what you desire, you may request such a hearing and one will be scheduled.

2. We could schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission for revocation of his previously granted approvals because he has not built in accordance with those approvals.

3. Your client could file an application for a hearing before the Commission to gain approval of the changes he unilaterally made to his approved plans.

While it appears number 3 above is the fastest route to resolving this issue, just ignoring the Building Official’s suspension of his permit is not a wise choice. Mark is preparing to have any worker on site cited. In our experience, Coby’s workers are not willing to risk citation for Coby.

There is one area where Mark has already informed Coby that he does need to do work, and that is with the excavation of the garage. Once again, perhaps before you were involved with this client or project, Coby has excavated dangerously close to the adjacent property and the risk of subsidence or cave in is high. In order to not have a public safety hazard existing on the property, endangering not only his property but also that of his neighbor, Mark has told Coby he needs to shore up that excavation. That is the only work permitted on this site pending resolution of the construction not in compliance with approved plans issue.

Thank you,
Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet –
I do not mean to bother you on vacation, but you have not provided me with any other contact Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 12 information for an attorney for the City. Please let the City know that, based on the case law below, the suspension of the permit is “inoperative and of no legal force.” City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 669. In addition, any issues related to whether the City can properly stop work due to alleged planning code violations is currently subject to an appeal which the City has not yet moved forward on. On these reasonable bases, given that the red tag is unenforceable, Mr. Friedman will continue working on his property.

Please expedite the issuance of the green tag.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 6:08 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 79 Wood lane
Janet -
Please send me the contact information of the attorney while you are out of town. Because of this transition, We can wait until noon tomorrow before we will be moving forward.

Get Outlook for Android
From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:17:41 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Richard,
I’m out of the State until Thursday and able to check emails only in the evening. I will send this email onto another attorney in the firm for a response.

Thank you,
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 12 Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet:

I have begun preparing the writ, which we intend to file this week. However, I wanted to give one last chance to avoid litigation.

As I discussed below, the building official does not have the power to summarily suspend a permit just because the construction changes. But Mr. Friedman also has a vested property interest in the construction project, which cannot be taken away by the City summarily. At a minimum, he is entitled to notice and a hearing prior to taking away his right to construct the home. “In revoking a permit lawfully granted, due process requires that it act only upon notice to the permittee, upon a hearing, and upon evidence substantially supporting a finding of revocation.” Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. City of Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776, 795. This is because “‘Where a permit to [build] a building has been acted upon, and where the owner has, as in this instance, proceeded to incur obligations and to in good faith proceed to erect the building, such rights are then vested property rights, protected by the federal and state Constitutions.” Id. at 796.

Courts continue to require that permit suspensions are afforded a notice and a hearing. In City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, the court stated, “As in the Trans-Oceanic case, it is conceded in this case that the rectory permit was ‘revoked’ without prior notice and without a hearing. Therefore, since the permit was validly issued, the attempted revocation was a violation of due process and ‘was inoperative and of no legal force.’ Furthermore, the attempted revocation of the permit by the building inspector by means of a letter to the defendants informing them that their permit would ‘stand revoked, in a suspense file’ was a complete nullity.” (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 669. Note as well that San Marino shows that the notice-and-hearing requirement applies, whether it is “revoked” or “in a suspense file.” Finally, because the Town exercised its discretion in finding the electrical system sufficient, providing the green tag is a ministerial task. Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 49, 58.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 12 If the City can reinstate the permit by the end of the day, and schedule a time to come and issue the green tag this week, we can avoid this costly litigation.

I look forward to your timely response.

From: Richard M. Harris
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:33 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Janet:

I have reviewed the stop work order (and attached the copy I received for your reference). It purports to be an action under section 105.6 of the building code, which states in its entirety:
“The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.” (emphasis added)
Here, Mr. Lockaby has not found that the permit was issued based on “incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete information,” but instead that “the work being done is based on incorrect, inaccurate, and incomplete information.” This is not a basis for suspension of a permit under the building code.

In fact, the building code contemplates that construction will be done that is inconsistent with the plans. Section 107.4 states that “any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents." When the construction does not meet the plans, the correct remedy is an amended set of construction documents, and the Town is not empowered to force the closure of the project simply because the amended plans have not yet been submitted.

Mr. Lockaby’s decision is not an exercise of discretion, but an action contrary to law – as I discussed in our previous demand letter, this will make the City liable for damages.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 12 To avoid further litigious action, please have Mr. Lockaby reinstate the permit as soon as possible. I would like to find a solution short of further litigation.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:08 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
Richard,
I haven’t seen the notice. I’ll check in with Mark.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 12 Janet –
Please let me know when we can expect a response. We would very much like to come to a solution short of further litigious action.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

Friedman’s plans.

Let us know if you agree so we can get the plans ready for submission.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 12 from your system. Thank you.

Please advise.

Please contact me to discuss why a State licensed contractor is performing construction not in conformance with approved plans.

Thank you,
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 12 Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:13 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

I look forward to your response.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 12 Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

Ms. Coleson:

As you know, we represent Coby Friedman in his effort to complete his permitted construction project at 79 Wood Lane, in Fairfax (Project). Mr. Friedman requests that the City of Fairfax (City) provides him a green tag so he can hook up power to the new construction. As the City inspector Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 11 of 12 has already found, the Project has met all of the requirements to receive this green tag.

Friedman’s damages only grow, including his temporary power costs, the loss of use of his home, and the inability to complete the Project.

Please confirm that the City will issue the green tag within 7 days. If the green tag is not issued, Mr.

Friedman will be forced to take further action. He expressly reserves all of his rights.

I look forward to your response.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-12 Filed 01/22/24 Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT 13
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 10 From: Janet Coleson
To: Richard M. Harris
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Lane
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:04:57 PM
Hello Richard,
Not exactly. Coby is constructing items that are not in accordance with approved plans. The Building Official has authority under the CA Bldg Code (adopted by the Town in Title 15) to issue a stop work order if construction is taking place that is not in conformance with approved plans and permits. The Building Official has the authority to issue or authorize the issuance of citations for violation of a stop work order. The Fairfax Building Official uses the Fairfax PD to issue infraction citations for violation of a stop work order. My understanding is that the citations are issued to anyone/everyone doing construction on the site.

The last time a stop work order was issued to your client (for this same construction site), I believe your firm filed a writ. I’m not trying to tell you how you should proceed, but there is no appeal to the Planning Commission or Town Council of a Building Official’s stop work order issued under the authority of the CA Bldg Code. Coby’s misplaced appeal and check will be returned to the address on the document. Submitting an application to the Planning Commission is the appropriate route to take to request a change to the plans (for items other than ADUs/.JADUs which are ministerially approved by the Building Official per the new State laws governing ADUs /JADUs).

I have calls until 2:30pm tomorrow. Please let me know if you’d like to talk after that time.

Thank you,
Janet
Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 11:15 AM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet –
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 10 I am Aaron’s colleague working on this matter. I understand that Coby has submitted, and the Town has accepted, his verified appeal and the $625 fee. The stop work order was issued because the Town contends some construction needed to be submitted to the planning commission, and was not. The rules of the planning commission are contained under title 17. Under title 17, the Town cannot enforce its stop work order until the appeal is resolved.

I am around all day today to discuss the issue if we can work out some kind of resolution which all the parties can live with. Please feel free to call me – my direct line is (415) 365 5306.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Associate
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 79 Wood Lane
From: Aaron P. Silberman
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 5:01 PM
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Lane
Janet:

Let’s find a time to talk on Monday.

In the meantime, in order to preserve his rights, Coby submitted an application to the Town Clerk today appealing the Order to Stop Work. A courtesy copy is attached.

Hopefully, when we talk, we can find some common ground here. It still appeared to me, from Mark and Coby’s recent emails, that they were close to agreement.

Aaron
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 10 Aaron P. Silberman | Shareholder
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.365.5339 dd | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 10:53 AM
To: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 79 Wood Lane
Aaron, I’m not able to discuss today as we have a high school graduation and accompanying events happening today. Coby has already gone beyond what is allowed/permitted and he is well aware of this. He has not agreed to stop, quite the opposite. He needs to stop work until this can be resolved.

If you have time on Monday, I think you and I should bring Mark into our conversation.

Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
On Jun 9, 2023, at 8:56 AM, Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Janet:

When I sent you my last email yesterday, I did not know that Mark had red-tagged the site. As a result of the Town’s action, it is urgent that you please respond to my questions below. Regardless of the basis for its position, would the Town be agreeable to lifting the red-tag if Coby agreed not to do any further work on the rear stairs (at least until we can resolve the issues there)?
Aaron
From: Aaron P. Silberman
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:41 PM
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 10 To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Lane
Janet:

I agree that a call might be useful, but I need to talk to Coby first. Before I do that, I’d like to understand the City’s position. Is there anything you can tell me in response to my questions below?
Aaron
Aaron P. Silberman | Shareholder
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.365.5339 dd | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 79 Wood Lane
Aaron we should talk because Mark is telling me that Coby has constructed things that are not on the approved plans and not connected with ADU/JADU that Mark has authority over. Mark says there are many workers onsite attempting to finish as much as possible as quickly as possible. I believe Coby needs to stop until this gets straightened out. He cannot just submit plans to the Assessor after it’s all built as he says he’s going to.

Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
On Jun 8, 2023, at 10:49 AM, Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 10 Hi, Janet.

It looks like the numbering is off in the forwarded email. Are you referring to the second item (starting with “A portion of the top floor …”)? Any others?
Re the second item, I’m a bit confused, and it looks like Coby is too, particularly about the following sentence from Mark: “We believe the JADU can proceed however the enclosure of the deck, and exterior stairway must go to the planning commission for approval.” Since Coby responds that the deck enclosure is done, the only remaining work issue I see is the exterior stairway. Is that the City’s view too? Re the exterior stairway, is the City’s position that (a) the exterior stairway is not related to the JADU and so must be submitted and approved by the PC (as opposed to administrative review by Mark); (b) it is related to the JADU but nevertheless must be submitted and approved by the PC; or (c) something else?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide me to understand where the City stands on this.

Aaron
Aaron P. Silberman | Shareholder
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.365.5339 dd | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:09 AM
To: Aaron P. Silberman <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 79 Wood Lane
Mr. Silberman,
This is your client’s response. He must stop any work that needs to be approved by the Commission. He needs to submit an application for PC.

The Town has been more than accommodating.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 10 Thank you,
Janet
Begin forwarded message:

Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
From: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Date: June 8, 2023 at 6:32:46 AM PDT
To: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 79 Wood Lane
CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

FYI
Thanks,
Mark Lockaby
Building Official
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Road
Fairfax, CA 94930
415-458-2370
From: Coby Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 9:40 PM
To: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Lane
Hi Mark,
My answers and comments are in red below.

Thanks,
Coby Friedman
CF Contracting, Inc.

Tel. 415-310-5442
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 10 Fax. 415-296-6437
From: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 9:21 AM
To: Coby Friedman <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 79 Wood Lane
Coby,
During a requested framing inspection I noticed that there were several changes to your approved plans. You
submitted new plans for the current design. The changes are either shown on the plans, or have been started as follows:

1. A portion of the basement is shown to be an
accessory dwelling unit, with an addition to meet
egress requirements for the bedroom. We believe this
can proceed.

Thank you

1. A portion of the top floor has been prepared to be a junior accessory dwelling unit, including enclosing an
upper deck, and the addition of an exterior stairway.

We believe the JADU can proceed however the
enclosure of the deck, and exterior stairway must go
to the planning commission for approval. No work can
proceed on the rear stairs or enclosed area until
planning commission approvals are obtained.

Additionally there will be a deed restriction required
stating that the home is to be owner occupied (State
Law).

The ~50 SF rear deck has already been enclosed, the
rough plumbing, electrical and HVAC work has been
done. The only remaining work to do there is
drywall and paint. Since you said that you believe
the JADU can proceed and the remaining work (i.e.
drywall, paint and the access stairs in the back) is all being done for the JADU, I’ll proceed with that work.

1. A portion of the of the basement is shown as
additional living space (office) for the main residence.

You have agreed to remove this from the plans, or
seek approval from the planning commission.

I agree to remove the “Office” and designate it as
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 10 storage space.

1. A rear deck is shown at the rear of the structure at ground level. You have agreed to remove the deck
from the plans, or seek approval from the planning
commission.

I agree

1. The front low roof is shown as being eliminated, and a deck above a portion of the lower floor even with the
top floor is shown. This must go to the planning
commission for approval. No work can continue
further with the deck until planning commission
approval is obtained.

The roof deck has already been constructed and
water proofed with epoxy coating. The only work
remaining to do there is the railings which you’ve
okayed me to install safety railing.

1. The new plans show a garage without out the ADU
that was shown on the previously approved plans. The
limit for the parcel is the main house, 1 ADU, and 1
JADU. In the future the garage cannot be converted to
an ADU, or have an ADU added to it (unless state laws
change).

I agree

1. You agreed to be cordial during any interactions with town staff, and the planning commission.

I’ll try my best
At this point only foundation inspections, and under slab plumbing inspections have been completed. At some point very soon framing, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical inspections will need to be scheduled and passed before any work can continue.

Please update your new plans to reflect the agreed upon deletions, and work with the planning department for the changes that need planning commission approvals.

I let you know that if any work is continued in the areas that need planning commission approvals a “Stop Work” order
will be issued.

I intend to submit plans showing the changes when the
project is done and for the County Assessor’s purposes only, so the property can be assessed for tax purposes. If you’d like to show the plans to the Planning Commission then be my guest. However, I don’t agree that the Planning
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 10 Commission should have anything to do with any work or
changes relating to the ADU or JADU or with any other
changes so long as the house complies with all the zoning standards.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Regards,
Mark Lockaby
Building Official
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Road
Fairfax, CA 94930
415-458-2370
This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-13 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 14
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-14 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 4 From: Coby Friedman
To: Mark Lockaby
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Ln. Green tag
Date: Friday, August 25, 2023 11:42:30 AM
Mark:

Thank you for meeting with me today. While we talked, you told me that the City attorney, Janet Coleson, had instructed you not to release the green tag for the meter. I told you that because the electrical system is acceptable, there is no legal basis for withholding the green tag. I told you that Janet had told my attorney the same thing. You also told me that the new Planning Director instructed you to contact the CSLB, and that you forwarded my email from this morning to him and to Janet. As I requested in my previous email, if you do contact the CSLB the contact information for my attorney so he can explain why I’m not doing anything wrong.

You also told me that the changes you put in your permit suspension letter are so minor that they’ll most likely get approved. I told you that I want to submit all of my changes when I’m done making them because I don’t want you to stop me again for minor changes.

I am still hopeful that the City will issue the green tag, as there is no legal basis for withholding it.

Thanks.

Coby Friedman
CF Contracting, Inc.

Tel. 415-310-5442
Fax. 415-2966437
From: Coby Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 8:02 AM
To: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Ln. Green tag
Mark:

I was entitled to the green tag when you did the inspection and cleared the house. You cannot withhold it now just because you have tried to suspend the permit based on wholly unrelated issues. And as my lawyer explained, you cannot suspend my permit without notice and a hearing where I get to provide evidence. Since there is no notice and hearing, then your “suspension” of the permit has “no legal force.”
Please have your contact at the CSLB contact my attorney, Richard Harris at [email protected]. He can explain these issues and make clear that I am an owner-builder of my own house, so there’s no “consumer” for the CSLB to protect except me.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-14 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 4 Thanks,
Coby Friedman
CF Contracting, Inc.

Tel. 415-310-5442
Fax. 415-296-6437
From: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 6:35 AM
To: Coby Friedman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 79 Wood Ln. Green tag
Coby,
I will not be releasing the meter until the building permit is reinstated. We have requested assistance from the Contractors State License Board. They responded immediately and conveyed that they consider contractors ignoring Stop Work Orders as a high priority.

Regards,
Mark Lockaby
Building Official
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Road
Fairfax, CA 94930
415-458-2370
From: Coby Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>
Subject: 79 Wood Ln. Green tag
Mark,
Please let me know if Janet has cleared you to post the green tag for the electrical service.

Thanks,
Coby Friedman
CF Contracting, Inc.

Tel. 415-310-5442
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-14 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 4 Fax. 415-296-6437
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-14 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 15
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 15

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Case No. CV0000737 567953.1

Page 1 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ROGERS JOSEPH O’DONNELL
Aaron P. Silberman (State Bar No. 161021)
[email protected]
Richard M. Harris (State Bar No. 269171)
[email protected]
311 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: 415.956.2828
Facsimile: 415.956.6457
Attorneys for Petitioner

JACOB FRIEDMAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN
JACOB FRIEDMAN, an individual
Petitioner,
vs.

CITY OF FAIRFAX, a general law city,

THE OFFICE OF BUILDING

INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF
FAIRFAX, in its official capacity, and
DOES 1 through 10,
Respondents.

Case No. CV0000737
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE:

PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S

VERIFIED PETITION FOR

ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND

WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 24, 2022, the Court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the Petition for Alternative Writ and Stay and Writ of Mandamus, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Dated: October 31, 2023 ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL
By: ________________________
AARON P. SILBERMAN
RICHARD M. HARRIS
Attorneys for Petitioner JACOB FRIEDMAN
10/31/2023 Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 15

EXHIBIT A
Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 15

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED TRAVERSE FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Case No. CV0000737 567586.1

Page 1 ends

JACOB FRIEDMAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN
JACOB FRIEDMAN, an individual
Petitioner,
vs.

CITY OF FAIRFAX, a general law city,

THE OFFICE OF BUILDING

INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF
FAIRFAX, in its official capacity, and
DOES 1 through 10,
Respondents.

Case No. CV0000737
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PETITIONER
JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED

PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT

AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioner Jacob Friedman’s Verified Petition for Alternative Writ and Stay and writ of Mandamus came on for hearing on October 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Department E of the Marin County Superior Court. Christopher Moffitt of Best Best & Krieger LLP appeared for Respondent. Richard Harris of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell appeared for Petitioner.

After hearing the oral argument presented, and having reviewed the papers filed regarding this petition, the petition is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Court adopts its tentative ruling issued on October 5, 2023, attached as Exhibit A.

AES 10/24/2023 Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 15

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED TRAVERSE FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Case No. CV0000737 567586.1

Page 2 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dated:

Hon. Andrew Sweet
Judge of the Superior Court
Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 15

EXHIBIT A
Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 15

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MARIN
DATE: 10/06/23 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: E CASE NO: CV0000737 PRESIDING: HON. ANDREW SWEET
REPORTER: CLERK: S. HENDRYX
PETITIONER: JACOB FRIEDMAN
vs.

RESPONDENT: CITY OF FAIRFAX, ET AL
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: WRIT OF MANDATE HEARING
RULING
Petitioner Jacob Friedman's ("Friedman") petition for writ of mandate is granted in part and denied in part.

The petition is granted as to the following issue only at this time. Respondent Town of Fairfax (the "Town") is directed to set aside the Order to Stop Work to the extent it applies to construction that was specifically identified and approved in Friedman's original application, construction documents, approved plans, and the permit issued based on those documents.

Friedman was entitled to a hearing prior to any suspension of the permit ( and order to stop work based on that suspension) under Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. City a/Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776 and City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657. Friedman's petition is denied to the extent it requests the Court to direct the Town to adopt a different appeal process.

The Court does not rule on the remaining issues in Friedman's petition, namely, the Order to Stop Work on construction not yet approved by the Town, and the green tag. As reflected above, in order to suspend the permit and issue an Order to Stop Work based on that suspension, the Town is required to provide Friedman a hearing. At that hearing, the remaining issues may be raised by the parties and ruled upon by the Town. If there are further proceedings after that hearing that properly bring those issues before the Court, the Court will rule on them at that time.

Factual Allegations in the Verified Petition
On August 29, 2023, Friedman filed his Verified Petition for Alternative Writ and Stay and Writ of Mandamus (the "Petition") against the Town and the Office of Building Inspector of the Town of Fairfax. Friedman alleges that on July 6, 2021, he submitted an application to the Town for the construction of a house and an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") at the property at 79 Wood Lane in Fairfax. (Petition, if6.) On January 20, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 15 CV0000737
application. (Id., ,18.) On August 4, 2022, the Town issued a building permit (the "Permit"), and Friedman hired a crew and mobilized equipment to begin work on the project. (Id., ,i,i9, 10.) After the Town issued the Permit, Friedman informed the Town that he intended to submit an application pursuant to Government Code Section 65852 et seq. ("SB 9"). (Id., ,111.) Friedman submitted his application for changes to his plans on August 9, 2022. (Id., ,112.) On August 10, 2022, the Town, through Building Official Mark Lockaby ("Building Official"), issued and posted an Order to Stop Work ("OSW") prohibiting further work at the project, noting that construction and excavation was beyond the scope of the Permit. (Id., iJ13.) On August 25, 2022, Friedman filed a petition for alternative writ and stay and mandamus. The parties resolved their dispute and the petition was dismissed without prejudice. (Id., ,114.) Work continued at the project. Friedman made various changes to the structure. The Building Official requested documentation about the changes from Friedman, and Friedman provided them. The changes to the plans included: (a) a portion of the basement was shown to be an accessory dwelling unit; (b) a portion of the top floor had been prepared to be a junior ADU, including enclosing an upper deck, and the addition of an exterior stairway; and ( c) the front low pitched roof is shown as being eliminated, and instead a roof deck above a portion of the lower floor even with the top floor is shown. (Id., ,115.) The Building Official agreed that Friedman could continue with work at the project, but requested that Friedman obtain approval of the second two changes from the Planning Commission before performing any further work on those changes. (Id., ,116.)
Believing the Building Official to be incorrect, Friedman continued construction with the intent to submit the changes for approval after the project was completed. (Id., ,117.) On June 8, 2023, the Building Official issued a notice to stop work on the project, noting that construction had not been approved. (Id., ,118.) Friedman submitted an appeal of this notice, which the City Council has not ruled upon, and continued working on the project. (Id., iJ,119-21.) On July 20, 2023, the Building Official completed an electrical inspection of the project.

Although the electrical system was in working order and up to code, the Building Official refused to approve it until Linda Neil signed off on it. (Id., ,122.) The Town's counsel told Friedman's counsel that the Town was withholding approval to force Friedman to submit new plans to the Planning Commission for approval. (Id., ,123.) Friedman continued working on the project but was accruing damages caused by the Town's actions. On July 28, 2023, Friedman's counsel sent an email to the Town requesting that it issue a green tag for the project. For several weeks, the Building Official failed to respond to Friedman when Friedman tried to reach him. (Id., ,l,124-27.) On August 11, 2023, the Building Official advised Friedman that he would suspend the Permit under California Building Code [A] 105.6 until Friedman obtained approvals from the Town. (Id., ,l,128, 29.) A similar letter was posted at the work site, along with a stop work order, on August 14, 2023. (Id., ,130.) On August 17, 2023, the Building Official sent another letter to Friedman stating that the construction

Page 2 ends

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 15 CV0000737
documents he submitted did not reflect some of the consttuction that was being completed at the project. (Id., i!32.)
The Verified Petition asserts a single cause of action for a writ of mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 and 1086. Friedman alleges that once the Town exercised its discretion as to whether a particular portion of work was installed in good and proper order, it was required by law to ministerially sign off on that inspection and issue a green tag allowing PG&E to connect power to the property. The Town violated its duties by (1) failing to issue the green tag once the Building Officer determined the electrical service and system was in good and working order; and (2) issuing, posting, and maintaining the OSW from August 11, 2023, prohibiting Friedman from continuing work under the Permit.

In his Prayer for Relief, Friedman requests an alternative writ and stay order requiring the Town to (1) rescind and stay enforcement of the OSW; (2) issue the green tag for the electrical system; and (3) establish an appeal procedure under the building code as required by section 1.8.8.1 et seq. and Lippman v. City of Oakland (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 750. Friedman also seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to Sections 1085-1087 ordering the Town to rescind and stay enforcement of the OSW and issue the green tag.

Procedural Background
On September 5, 2023, Friedman appeared ex parte seeking an order on the merits of his petition. The Court denied this request based on Friedman's failure to show sufficient urgency for an ex parte order. The Court issued an OSC ordering the Town to show cause why the petition should not be granted, to be heard on October 6, 2023. The Court entered a briefing schedule, requiring the Town's Opposition/Return to be filed by September 19, 2023 and any Reply/Traverse from Friedman to be filed by September 26, 2023.

Following the September 5th ex parte hearing, Friedman submitted an appeal with the Town to reconsider the suspension of the Permit. On September 13th, the Town rejected the appeal and upheld the Building Official's suspension of the Permit until Petitioner submits an application and receives approval of his modifications from the Planning Commission. (Declaration of Christopher Moffitt ("Moffitt Deel.,"), ,i2 and Exh. A.) Standard
"A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person." (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085.) A writ of mandate "will issue against a county, city, or other public body .... " (County of San Diego v.

State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 593 [citation and internal quotations omitted].) A writ of mandate under Section 1085 is available where "the petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate alternative remedy; the respondent has a clear, present and usually ministerial duty to perform; and the petitioner has a clear, present and beneficial right to performance." (Conlan v.

Page 3 ends

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 15 CV0000737
Banta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 745, 751-752.) "Mandate will not issue to compel action unless it is shown the duty to do the thing asked for is plain and unmixed with discretionary power or the exercise of judgment. Thus, a petition for writ of mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 may only be employed to compel the performance of a duty which is purely ministerial in character." (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees of Saint Agnes Medical Center (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 618 [citation omitted].) Request for Judicial Notice
The Town's request for judicial notice of Exhibits A-N, filed in connection with its Opposition to Friedman's ex parte application, is granted. (Evid. Code§§ 452, 453.) The Fairfax Town Code
Section 15.04.010 of the Fairfax Town Code ("Town Code") provides that the Town has adopted Division II of Chapter 1 of the 2022 edition of the California Building Code ("CBC"), except for CBC Section 113. (Town Code§ 15.04.010(A)(2)(a).)
CBC Section 105 .1 provides: "Any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit."1 CBC Section 105.3 sets forth the information to be provided in an application for a permit, which includes the identification and description of "the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made" and requires the submission of construction documents.

CBC Section 107.4 provides: "Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents."
CBC Section 105.6 provides that the Building Official "is authorized to suspend or n~voke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any provisions of this code."
Town Code Section 17.024.060 provides: "No person, firm, or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, convert or demolish any building or structure in the town, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a separate building permit for each such building or structure from the building official."
Town Code Section 17.024.120 provides the Town's appeal process: "All decisions of the Planning Commission in proceedings for the revocation or modification may be appealed and reviewed in substantially the same manner as provided for in Chapter 17.036 of this title." 1 Exceptions from pe1mit requirements are set forth in Section 105.2. These exceptions do not appear to be at issue in this action.

Page 4 ends

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 15 CV0000737
Discussion
Hearing Requirement
The Town argues that Building Code Section 105.6 authorizes the Building Official to suspend or revoke a permit, when the permit was issued on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information or is in violation of an ordinance or regulation, without a hearing.

Therefore, the Town argues, it did not have a ministerial duty to provide Friedman with a hearing before suspending the Permit or issuing the OSW. Instead, it had discretion to suspend the Permit without a hearing and the Court cannot compel the Town to exercise its discretion differently. The Town argues that, as it previously advised Friedman, it exercised its discretion to suspend the Permit because there were three changes to the job plans that differed from the Permit.

The Court disagrees with the Town and finds that the Town owed a mandatory duty to provide Friedman with a hearing before suspending the Permit. In Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. City of Santa Barbara (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 776, the court stated:

A permit may not be revoked arbitrarily 'without cause.' (53 C.J.S. § 44, p. 651.) It is conceded that in revoking the permit granted to appellant, the City Council of Santa Barbara did so without prior notice to appellant, without a hearing, and without evidence. In determining that a permit, validly issued, .should be revoked, the governing body of a municipality acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.

In revoking a permit lawfully granted, due process requires that it act only upon notice to the permittee, upon a hearing, and upon evidence substantially supporting a finding of revocation . . . The resolution of revocation in the instant case, adopted without notice or hearing or reception of competent evidence, was inoperative and of no legal force.
(Id. at pp. 783-784; see also City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 669 ["it is conceded in this case that the rectory permit was 'revoked' without prior notice and without a hearing. Therefore, since the permit was validly issued, the attempted revocation was a violation of due process and 'was inoperative and of no legal force"'] [citation omitted].) Friedman's due process rights govern over the Code sections relied upon by the Town. (See California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 188.)
Accordingly, the Town is directed to set aside the suspension of the Permit and the OSW to the extent it is directed at work previously approved by the Town and authorized under the Permit.

Appeal Procedure
The Town argues that it is not required to provide an appeal process in accordance with CBC Section 1.8.8.1 because this section is found under Division I of Chapter 1, which was never adopted by the Town. Instead, the Town processes appeals pursuant to Town Code Section

Page 5 ends

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 11 of 15 CV0000737

17.024.120, which provides: "All decisions of the Planning Commission in proceedings for the revocation or modification may be appealed and reviewed in substantially the same manner as provided for in Chapter 17.036 of this title." Chapter 17.036 provides for an appeal to the Town Council for any alleged "error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or determination made by an administrative official, advisory body or Planning Commission in the administration or enforcement of this title."(§ 17.036.010.) The Town Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action taken, and the decision of the Town Council may be reviewed by the court. (§§

17.036.060, 17.0~6.070.)
Friedman contends that even though the Town has not expressly adopted Section 1.8.8.1, the entirety of the CBC, including section 1.8.8.1, is applied against the Town in the State Housing Law, Health & Safety Code Section 17910 et seq. ("State Housing Law"). Friedman cites to Lippman v. City of Oakland (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 750, in which the court found that the City of Oakland's single hearing officer appeals process conflicted with the procedures set forth in the CBC, including Section 1.8.8.1. The court rejected the City's argument that there was no conflict between the appeal process set forth in its municipal code and the CBC because the CBC required only the establishment of "process" to hear and decide appeals, which did not require an "appeals board". The court explained:

Page 6 ends

We read the plain language of Building Code section 1.8.8.1 as mandating that local governments establish an appellate process, which may be satisfied in one of three ways: (1) by creating a local appeals board for new construction and a housing appeals board for existing buildings; (2) by creating an agency authorized to hear such appeals; or (3) by having the governing body of the city serve as the local appeals board or housing appeals board. Notably, however, the Building Code does not contemplate an appeal before a single hearing officer. Rather, the Building Code refers to an "appeals board." (Building Code, § 1.8.8.1, italics omitted.) A "local appeals board" is defined as "the board or agency of a city or county which is authorized by the governing body of the city or county to hear appeals regarding the building requirements of the city or county." (Health & Saf. Code, § 17920.5, italics added; see also Building Code, § 1.8.8.2.) The Building Code section explains, "In any area in which there is no such board or agency, 'Local appeals board' means the governing body of the city, county, or city and county having jurisdiction over the area." (Building Code, § 1.8.8.2, italics omitted; see also Health & Saf.

Code, § 17920.5.) Thus, a city council or board of supervisors may be considered the local appeals board. Further, the local appeals board or governing body may act as the "housing appeals board." (Building Code, § 1.8.8.2; Health & Saf. Code, § 17920.6.) Consequently, at minimum, there is a mandatory duty to establish a local appeals board or an agency authorized to hear appeals. And, if no such board or agency exists, the governing body shall act as the local appeals board.

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 12 of 15 CV0000737
(Id. at p. 760 [emphasis in original].)
The appeal process set forth in Town Code Section 17.024.120 and Chapter 17.036, which provides for appeals to the Town Council, is consistent with CBC Section 1.8.8.1 and Lippman.

Section 1.8.8.1 provides that where no appeal board has been established, a city's governing body shall serve as the local appeal board, and Lippman confirmed that "a city council or board of supervisors may be considered the local appeals board." (Id. at p. 760.) Friedman does not provide any explanation as to how the Town's procedure is otherwise inconsistent with CBC Section 1.8.8.1, so his request for writ of mandate directing the Town to adopt a different appeals procedure is denied.

Remaining Issues
The remaining issues raised in the petition, namely the OSW as it pertains to work not yet approved by the Town and the green tag, are premature and/or not properly before the Court as they will likely be subjects at issue in any hearing provided to Friedman.2 The Court will not rule on them in the first instance.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.1 0(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.1 0(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for October, 2023 is as follows:
https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1605l53328?pwd=eUUlOE9BTG5tWHgrOFNKMmVvd2tFQT09 Meeting ID: 160 515 3328
Passcode: 360075
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court's website: marin.courts.ca;gov
2 This includes any application of Government Code Section 65852.21. Friedman acknowledges on page 7 of his brief that this could be raised at the hearing, as he includes his discussion of this section under the heading "If a hearing were conducted, the Town would fail to show that Friedman has violated Building Code 105.6.:

Page 7 ends

Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 13 of 15

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED TRAVERSE FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Case No. CV0000737 567586.1

Page 3 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE
[C.C.P. §§ 1010.6, 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5, C.R.C.§§ 1.21, 2.260, 2.306] I, Sharon Ingram, state:

My business address is 311 California Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104.

The electronic notification address from which I served the documents listed below is:
[email protected]. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. On October 19, 2023, I served the following documents described as:
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED

TRAVERSE FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF

MANDAMUS
on the following person(s) in this action addressed as follows:

Janet E. Coleson
Christopher M. Moffitt

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 977-3300
Facsimile: (925) 977-1870
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent
X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On October 19, 2023, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed above.

Within a reasonable time, the transmission was reported as complete and without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this date at San Francisco, California.

Dated: October 19, 2023
Sharon Ingram
Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 14 of 15

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS – Case No. CV0000737 567953.1

Page 2 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE
[C.C.P. §§ 1010.6, 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5, C.R.C.§§ 1.21, 2.260, 2.306] I, Sharon Ingram, state:

My business address is 311 California Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104.

The electronic notification address from which I served the documents listed below is:
[email protected]. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. On October 31, 2023, I served the following documents described as:

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: PETITIONER JACOB FRIEDMAN’S

VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND STAY AND WRIT

OF MANDAMUS
on the following person(s) in this action addressed as follows:

Janet E. Coleson
Christopher M. Moffitt

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
2001 N. Main Street, Suite 390
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 977-3300
Facsimile: (925) 977-1870
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent
X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On October 31, 2023, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed above.

Within a reasonable time, the transmission was reported as complete and without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this date at San Francisco, California.

Dated: October 31, 2023
Sharon Ingram
Marin Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 10-31-2023 at 11:03:10 AM Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-15 Filed 01/22/24 Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT 16
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-16 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 3 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-16 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 3 Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-16 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 17
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-17 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 3 From: Richard M. Harris
To: Janet Coleson
Cc: Aaron P. Silberman
Subject: RE: 79 Wood lane - appeal refused
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 5:59:00 PM
Janet –
Thank you for reaching out. As you know, Mr. Friedman attempted to appeal the commission’s decision, but was refused. This morning, counsel from your office represented to the Court that the temporary suspension of Mr. Friedman’s permit was an “unappealable” decision.

We are currently evaluating our next steps.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris | Shareholder
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you.

From: Janet Coleson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 10:13 AM
To: Richard M. Harris <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 79 Wood lane - appeal refused
We should discuss. I’m pretty seriously booked today. In the morning? Janet Coleson
Partner
[email protected]
T: (925) 977-3319
bbklaw.com |
This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received and all attachments.

On Jan 16, 2024, at 9:47 AM, Richard M. Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-17 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 3 Janet –
Based on the commissions determination on January 11, 2024, Mr. Friedman attempted to lodge an appeal to the Town Council with the required fee this morning.

Under the code, an aggrieved party is entitled to appeal if “it is alleged that there is error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or determination made by … planning commission in the administration of [title 17].” Town Code 17.036.010. Mr. Friedman is an aggrieved party as his right to construct has been suspended by the planning commission, and the suspension of his permit is either an order, requirement, decision, or determination. He is enittled to an appeal – a right that he must exercise prior to January 21, 2024, within 10 days of the decision. Town Code 17.036.020. If the Town is unwilling to accept the appeal, Mr. Friedman will be forced to file a writ simply to get the town to accept his appeal to the Town Council.

Let me know if the Town is willing to change its position, or if Mr. Friedman will be required to file a writ.

Thanks,
Richard M. Harris |
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL | a Professional Law Corporation 311 California Street, 10th fl | San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828 main | 415.956.6457 fax
[email protected] | www.rjo.com
Notice to recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient(s) of the transmission and may be privileged by law. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately. Do not print, copy, or disseminate it. Please delete the email from your system. Thank you. <SKM_C364e24011516280.pdf>
Case 4:24-cv-00371-DMR Document 1-17 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 3

Fairfax City CouncilFebruary 29, 2024

Fairfax City Council
February 29, 2024